unless they wanted to reduce their current taxes. 4) In the engagement letter given to a client it says that “the auditor is able to obtain reasonable‚ but not absolute‚ assurance that material misstatements are detected.1” This means the auditor is not responsible for ensuring there is not mistakes or misstatement but they are responsible for reasonable assurance. The judgment of the auditor is “required to be the informed judgment of a qualified professional person2” In other words the auditors at Chapman
Premium Financial audit Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Audit
financial year of 2009 equal to $60 million. a. Outline relevant issues in deciding whether your firm‚ PA‚ has been negligent in the performance of its duties as the auditor of Skyhigh Ltd. The position of auditors‚ with regard to negligent misstatements‚ was made clear in the Pacific Acceptance case; it was established that any plaintiff‚ bringing an action negligent misstatement against an auditor had to establish four elements. They were: • There must be a duty of care owed to the plaintiff
Premium Auditor's report Financial statements Balance sheet
TORT LAW REVISION GUIDE: LLB/LLM PROGRAMME 2014 General Guidance All topics covered on the Tort module are potential examination topics. This revision guide covers only those potential examination topics deemed core areas of knowledge in tort law. All students‚ whether studying toward the LLB or LLM‚ must have full command of these core topics for any assessment in tort law. Unless these notes expressly state otherwise‚ students can expect core examination topics to appear in either essay
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
earned $300‚000 a year as a management consultant. What is worse‚ he went to his former job which salary is still $200‚000 and spent two years study and obtained no help for increasing the salaries. Overall‚ he suffered financial loss from the negligent misstatement. To succeed in a negligence action‚ the plaintiff must prove all of the following: • the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care • the defendant has failed to comply with the required standard of care • there has been material damage
Premium Tort Contract Reasonable person
Explain your answers. Yes‚ Norris can sue the estate agent for the statements about the business. “People who unintentionally or carelessly give false advice‚ information or opinions on business or professionals matter may be liable for negligent misstatement if the receiver reasonably relied on the false material and suffered economics loss” Here‚ Norris being an indivisual interested to buy a property as mentioned above who even did some homeworks before buying it.Evatt being a professional agent
Premium Law Real estate Negligence
False Difficulty: Medium Multiple Choice Questions 11. A CPA issued an unqualified opinion on the financial statements of a company that sold common stock in a public offering subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Based on a misstatement in the financial statements‚ the CPA is being sued by an investor who purchased shares
Premium Tort law Auditor's report Legal terms
Issue: Did Phillip or Radio Station 2ZW owe Jane or Tom duties of care? Is this personal injury or purely economic loss case? Was there a breach of the duty of care? Did the breach cause any harm to Jane and Tom? Was the scope appropriate of the negligent person’s liability? Are there any defences available for Philip or 2ZW? Relevant law: Elements of negligence action need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities: In personal injury case‚ duty of care exists if harm is reasonably foreseeable
Premium Tort law Tort law Tort
LEGT 5512 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ACCOUNTANTS SESSION 2‚ 2010 CASE LIST This Case List is not intended to cite every case quoted in lectures and tutorials during the course. Its purpose is to give students a handy citation of a number of leading cases with brief statements to help identify them. This list may not be taken into the Final Examination. 1. 2. 3 Commonwealth v State of Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625 Federal and State powers Lee v Knapp [1967] 2 QB 442 “Stop after accident” – golden rule Smith
Premium Tort Contract Invitation to treat
opinion to the Shareholders Management gives a stewardship relationship (to manage and look after the company for the S/H) with the shareholders Audit Objectives To gain reasonable assurance of F/S To ensure F/S are free from material misstatements For the auditor to express an opinion about the F/S being prepared with respects to the financial reporting frameworks (IFRS‚ ASPE) Chapter 2 – The Public Accounting Profession Quality Control for Firms (Table 2.2. p 39)
Premium Auditing Auditor's report Audit
liability/non-delegable duties 3 2 Duty of care 5 2.1 Immunities 5 2.2 Omissions/failure to control third party 6 2.3 Atypical Plaintiffs 6 2.4 Unborn Child 6 2.5 Mental Harm/Nervous Shock 7 2.6 Statutory Authorities 8 2.7 Pure Economic Loss/Negligent Misstatement 11 3 Breach of Duty 12 3.1 Section 5C 12 3.2 Obvious risks 12 4 Causation 13 4.1 Res ipsa loquitur 13 4.2 Novus actus interveniens 13 4.3 Causation in medical “failure to warn” cases 14 4.4 Multiple causes of injury/death 14 5 Remoteness
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence